It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A few tidbits about Iraq and the war on terror

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Things that make you think a little:

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq


When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following:

A. FDR led us into World War II.


B. Germany never attacked us ; Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...an average of 112,500 per yea

C. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea . North Korea never attacked us ..
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ...an average of 18,334 per year.


D John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.


E. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..
an average of 5,800 per year.


F. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us . He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three
times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.


H. In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and, North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.


The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking.



But Wait


It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51-day operation..


We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.



It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.


It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida !!!!



I recevied these in an email from my sister in law this morning and it really put into perspective the wars that have been fought since WW2 began and the leaders that were there. With all of the criticism of the current administration, I wanted to share these little bits of information that I found quite interesting. I mean, economy is up, unemployment is at an all time low and there are lots of jobs bieng created. It is just that the media spouts negative information and shows nothing good, because good deeds do not sell, death does.

We are close to going to war wtih Iran and since there are weapons that can be traced back, this may no longer be a proxy war in Gaza or Iraq, may very well get real bad real fast. AS americans we are not ready for the homeland response of an attack on Iraq. Iraq was not a player, but a financier only in terror, but Iran is the 'major' player that I am afraid will unleash attacks on American soil.

Are we losing? Are we winning? Can anyone provide me with some good insight as to how the WOT is progressing, and I am not looking for the same rhetoric please, be creative. What is to be done before the war comes home.


[edit on 12-2-2007 by esdad71]




posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 10:19 PM
link   
C'mon, I wanted a discussion on this. I guess since there are no UFO's or Nazis and it doesn;t paint Bush in bad light everyone is scared off.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 12:40 AM
link   
I think the reason why no one cares about a threat like this (same here) is because it is the same old rhetoric, I remember thread just like this a year ago, and this is about 4-5 of these threads later. Anyway let me burst a few bubbels:
WW1-2: US imperialsm, the US engaged Nazi Germany over the Luistiania which was sunk off the coast of GB at the time by German U-Boats and then the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. Also there were fears that Germany would advance on America if they failed to halt them in GB. Ok that sums up history 102 for you on WW1-2. Also the reason so many died, and I guess you never looked this up: tactics.
WW1: WAVE TACTICS, line up and charge a machine gun nest... yeah real smart...
WW2: Wave tactics with air support and tanks, same results. Remember WW2 was a grander scale than Iraq of Afghanistan, MILLIONS were funneled in by ALL sides to fight, and with the tactics used YES casualties were HIGH.
NOW FOR KOREA!
Korea: NK fought with wave tactics as did the Chinese, again, the US was NOT the only one fighting! There were several armies there under the direction of the UN! They too used wave tactics, machine guns were not standard issue, bolt action rifles and M1's were regular issue, one shot at a time is how they fought. All sides pushed in MILLIONS of people to fight in a tiny strip of land, thus casualties were HIGH.
Vietnam!
Vietnam was an epidemy of stupidity on behalf of the Vietnamese. They had AK's which were full auto, yet they prefered to do like in WW1 and line up, then charge. thus a quarter of Vietnam died, with the help of US bombardments and murders. The US had roughly the same amount of people in Vietnam as they do in Iraq, only Iraq is in SMALL TIGHT spaces, Vietnam was jungle fighting. I have been in a jungle HUGE SHINING difference compared to fighting in a desert which is OPEN! Go look up geography on Vietnam vs. that of Iraq and Afghanistan. The fighting was not set, it was sporadic and random, also there was no such thing as body armor, most wore regular issue T-shirts. Casualties thus went up. The enemy picked off the US forces BIT BY BIT vs. Iraq where they face tight space combat and large enemy numbers.
Bosnia, small space, superior numbers going in vs. an enemy with LOW technology much like Vietnam. Not going to repeat myself again.


OK! Now that you have had a broken down AND watered down "cram" of History-102, which I HIGHLY suggest you take, you might see WHY casualties were high verses now. Tactics change, the settings change, technology changes, and so on. Iraq has fewer deaths because of changed in technology, however you also need to look at the wounded numbers, you may have better technology, but it backfires easily. Then as stated, the Iraqis are stuck fighting in cities not open country side like the Vietnamese or other nations throughout wars, they are stuck, if they go outside there is open desert and they can be seen with the naked eye. Problem is, there is a hoard of US military and British military personel in the city, so they have to wait and pick off the idiots who go out alone. Thus they cannot kill as many, it is a slower process because of this. Also the Iraqis do not have immense numbers like the Vietnamese had, the Vietnamese could just wave attack a position and throw away about 10,000 lives to kill 500 enemies and go: "phah! We have 3 million more waiting!" The Iraqis do NOT have this, also it is harder to get guns since so much of the place is desert the transports can be seen unless they are VERY small.
When you want to talk about casualties, consider the changes in warfare, you CANNOT compare WW1-2 to now, IMPOSSIBLE! You CANNOT compare Korea to now! Vietnam is as close as it gets because they used gurilla warfare, however once again, technology and terrain are different. Go take history-102 at your local college, then read how wars were fought versus now. Having HIGH casualties today means you made a REALLY stupid move, because most fighting anymore is based around striking quick then getting out, however the US still likes to "wave attack" with numbers... Also another difference: The Iraqis are smarter, they learned the lessons of Vietnam and are not repeating them, you will note the repition in wars up untill now, the Iraqis are the first ones to truly follow gurilla warfare and not do stupid things as much as other nations have. They no longer wave attack! They will wait untill you pop your head out then shoot it off, unlike in Vietnam where people walked around the jungle and had a hard time seeing each other. Anway, getting late, bursted a bubble, however I know they will ignore it, and then challange this, however I hold history as my witness. So unless you re-write history, the facts stand as to why casualties change so much war to war.

Continued on next one, decided to keep going.
Edit: added above line

[edit on 13-2-2007 by Vekar]



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Oh and lastly, funny how proud you are of attacking a nation that lost its army in 1991, THEY HAD NO ARMY THIS TIME AROUND! JUST REMNANTS!!! Yeesh, nothing to destroy, most of it deserted. Talk about arrogance, anyway, liberation: nope, no one liberated. Iran is justified in what they are doing, they HAVE been on the list LONG before Iraq, they knew this and took steps, GET USED TO IT! What would YOU do if someone called you an evil person then knocked off your neigbor who was on their list? Sit around and whistle dixie? I would gather every gun, bomb, knife and bullet I could find and get ready, then make sure YOU are too busy elsewhere so I can gather more ammunition and people. As for Iraq and funding terrorist... BULL! YOU ARE ALLIED WITH THE SAUDIS AND KUWAITIS! THESE PEOPLE ARE OPENLY DEGRADING HUMAN RIGHTS! Go read a national geographic I saw 8 years ago on Kuwait and how they tortured women, then Saudi Arabia and how THEY train and fund terrorists. Iraq DID NOT! If you want to go gung-ho over terrorists how about looking at YOURSELF? WHOM do you fund? Your FOREIGN policy is what starts all of these wars, so no WONDER people want to see you get your arse kicked all the time! I cannot blame them! Funding dicators in Chile, terrorists in Yugoslavia PRIOR to the Yugoslavian war (go read Milosevics challaning speech), you CREATED Osama, and so on. hmmm.... who is the bigger terrorist? The one being paid to do it or the one who is PAYING them? I would say the one paying them: the US government and CIA, as well as the foreign policy which makes it possible.
Cant wait for the usual thoughts of "your anti-american" to start flowing now... oh well! You wanted someone to respond so there you go! Now I have better things to do, so hopefully someone will keep fighting you if you want to keep this going because these threads get mighty old after a few years. Goodnight!



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 01:10 AM
link   
I'll bite...



There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq


This should not be considered by anyone to be an endorsement of the WoT. The facts speak for themselves: our own nation has such enormous problems with violence and the rule of law, nevermind Democratic process, transparent government, healthcare, border security, etc., we're in no way qualified to fix other peoples' problems. It's a clear-cut case of the blind leading the blind.

We're willing to spend hundreds of billions shooting up the Middle East, but even a measely billion is too much to ask for rehabilitating the Midwest?



It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51-day operation..


That's nonsense - we haven't taken Iraq.

Nevermind the fact that I've always detested Janet 'The Man' Reno...

Am I automatically a supporter of the Clinton Crime Family just because I won't side with the Bush Crime Family? Six of one, half-dozen of the other...

Red-tie criminals, Blue-tie criminals, what's the friggin' difference?



I mean, economy is up, unemployment is at an all time low and there are lots of jobs bieng created. It is just that the media spouts negative information and shows nothing good, because good deeds do not sell, death does.




Unemployment at all time low? Replace the word 'low' with the word 'high' and that would be a true statement.



www.epinet.org...

Long-term unemployment—when unemployed workers have been seeking work for six months or more—is the most severe form of joblessness. The consequences of extended periods of joblessness are significant: the long-term unemployed often face financial, personal, and health care hardships as well as the loss of their unemployment insurance benefits. An analysis of long-term unemployment from 2000 to 2003 (a period spanning the recession that occurred between March and November 2001) shows that the number of people without work for six months or more has risen at the extraordinarily high rate of 198.2% over this period.1 Job seekers with college degrees and those age 45 and older have had an especially difficult time finding work, with long-term unemployment for those groups rising by 299.4% and 217.6%, respectively.


The unemployment numbers are CRAP. They don't take into account the number of people who are underemployed, those who remain unemployed after their benefits expire, those who never apply for benefits, or those who never were eligible for benefits.

More people than ever before are forced to rely on federal assistance programs, food stamps and the like, just to get by every month.

The funding for these programs has not even come close to meeting demand.

Meanwhile, food prices continue to outpace inflation, often by double digits. A major component of the increase is the price of fuel. What do you think will happen when it's no longer profitable to ship staples, like grains and vegetables?

Housing assitance is another issue - the last time Section 8 had an open house down the street from me, there was a line of more than a hundred people, stretching out the door and onto the sidewalk (and they had something like three vacancies in the program).

There are lots of jobs being created, that's true. It's a shame that the majority of them are in the service sector. Where I come from, service is just a softer word for slavery.

Even more troubling is the number of full-time jobs with benefits that are disappearing, only to be replaced by part-time and temporary positions.



Are we losing? Are we winning?


Simply put, we can never win the WoT. It's like cleaning your house - by the time you're done, it's dirty again.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 01:54 AM
link   
WyrdeOne,spoken like a true patriot and its good to see.I loved your whole post.


Originally posted by esdad71
Are we losing? Are we winning? Can anyone provide me with some good insight as to how the WOT is progressing,


Is this like your war on drugs?

You guys cant even keep drugs out of your freaking jails,how are you going to stop a global war on terror?

To put it better into comparism your inteligence agency did a drug bust on a country based on bogus infomation and your authorities are still there killing and getting killed for it,whist dragging other countries into this with you.

All the while with you thinking those who speak out against this horror are somehow your enemy,look closer to see who the enemy is.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 02:03 AM
link   
Sorry OP but its a case of "blah blah blah" propaganda.

It could have been - and probably was - written by one of the Pentagons new "online media" specialists, which is why its drawn more negative reactions than positives.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Thanks guys, that is what I expected.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Things that make you think a little:

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq


When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following:

A. FDR led us into World War II.

B. Germany never attacked us ; Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...an average of 112,500 per yea

C. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea . North Korea never attacked us ..
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ...an average of 18,334 per year.


D John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.


E. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..
an average of 5,800 per year.


F. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us . He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.

Are we losing? Are we winning? Can anyone provide me with some good insight as to how the WOT is progressing, and I am not looking for the same rhetoric please, be creative. What is to be done before the war comes home.

[edit on 12-2-2007 by esdad71]



You have voted esdad71 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


The part of the opener I've quoted was excellent, It does make you see thing in the bigger picture, Thanks.

WyrdeOne,

I would have voted your post also as "Way above top secret" but your a Mod and the option to vote isn't under your Avatar


WyrdeOne with your post you have balanceed the thread, thanks



Originally posted by esdad71
H. In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and, North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.


This is where the OP starts to loose credibility, no countries have been liberated by GW Bush's policies. The west have help depose Saddam Hussain from power but have put a civil war in his place, also the Iraqi's see themselves as under occupation. To liberate means to set something Free.

The Taliban is not crushed if anything it is getting stronger in Afghanistan, We could have crushed the Taliban but too many personell were pulled out too quickly, also Afghanistan is not Liberated as it is still a war zone!

Al-qaida are also not crushed they have just been dangerously driven deeper underground Al-quaida is still helping plot alot of insurgent attacks on coalition forces.

The UN security council is who put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and, North Korea. If you remember North Korea and Iran refused to let in inspectors because of US bully tactics. It took diplomats from the EU, China, Japan and Russia to get talks back on track with North korea and Iran.


Originally posted by esdad71
Are we losing? Are we winning? Can anyone provide me with some good insight as to how the WOT is progressing, and I am not looking for the same rhetoric please, be creative. What is to be done before the war comes home.


We are currently loosing the war on terror, at the moment the war on terror is fueling the very thing it aims to stop. I believe it is winnable but only if the rest of the worls starts telling GW Bush and his Hawks to take a chill pill, Washington needs immense international pressure to halt it's "dubious" Pre emptive, and spread of democracy doctrine!

I believe if GW Bush orders an attack on Iran the precariously balanced global security will tip towards destruction. I believe that will be the biggest turning point in human history.

Even if the war in Iraq is somehow magically fixed through diplomatic means I believe it shall take at least 2 generations for the relations to even start mending. To many young people in the Middle East HATE the West, and if you have ever felt hate you will realise how long it takes to go away!

Be safe



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 08:24 AM
link   
This was an email I received that I wanted to get some feedback on. There is no need to attack the messenger. There were points in there that are valid, and there is no denying that.

My question was HOW LONG until the WOT is in our homeland? Did you not get far enough to see that there was a question, or did you see it was supporting Bush and tuned it out?

Unemployment is down, and it is Wal-Mart and corporations that pay nothing as wage that are bankrupting the workforce, not the administration. This has been growing since the INternet boom in the 80's. THere is no middle class. None. You are either rich or use payday loans to get by. This is life.

This is not about anti or pro american, it is a question on how are we preparing ourselves for the coming incidents that will occur stateside. ALso, thanks for the good responses.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 08:25 AM
link   
This was an email I received that I wanted to get some feedback on. There is no need to attack the messenger. There were points in there that are valid, and there is no denying that.

My question was HOW LONG until the WOT is in our homeland? Did you not get far enough to see that there was a question, or did you see it was supporting Bush and tuned it out?

Unemployment is down, and it is Wal-Mart and corporations that pay nothing as wage that are bankrupting the workforce, not the administration. This has been growing since the INternet boom in the 80's. THere is no middle class. None. You are either rich or use payday loans to get by. This is life.

This is not about anti or pro american, it is a question on how are we preparing ourselves for the coming incidents that will occur stateside. ALso, thanks for the good responses.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

Are we losing? Are we winning? Can anyone provide me with some good insight as to how the WOT is progressing, and I am not looking for the same rhetoric please, be creative. What is to be done before the war comes home.

[edit on 12-2-2007 by esdad71]


That above is actually the question you asked!

I have tried to answer the above questions in my post! Also WyrdeOne made a good contribution by giving another point of view on some of the points you raised in the OP and in his last sentence gave you his answer on "Are we losing? Are we winning?"

Saying things like:


Originally posted by esdad71
C'mon, I wanted a discussion on this. I guess since there are no UFO's or Nazis and it doesn;t paint Bush in bad light everyone is scared off



Originally posted by esdad71
Thanks guys, that is what I expected. Sarcastic tone detected



Originally posted by esdad71
There is no need to attack the messenger



Originally posted by esdad71
Did you not get far enough to see that there was a question, or did you see it was supporting Bush and tuned it out?


These kind of statments will not get you the kind of response your looking for and will attract the argumentitive types.

Also if you want don't want people to comment on points you present in a thread then you shouldn't write them, if you were looking for a direct answer on your closing question you should have written just the question.

Sorry I don't normally act self rightous but this had the potential to be a good thread!

I don't condone the pointless replies in this thread or any thread but you in my opinion you shouldn't get stressed out because the thread isn't going exactly how you planned.

Rant mode: Deactivated



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Thanks for the kind words, Jimmy & gps - they're appreciated.


Now...



Unemployment is down, and it is Wal-Mart and corporations that pay nothing as wage that are bankrupting the workforce, not the administration. This has been growing since the INternet boom in the 80's. THere is no middle class. None. You are either rich or use payday loans to get by. This is life.


Hold on a second. No matter how many times you say that unemployment is down, it's still a false statement predicated on a worthless set of numbers.

Unemployment is NOT DOWN.

How many jobs were added in December? ~100000? How many of those were service jobs? ~95%? Lemme say it again, but louder. THIS IS NOT GOOD NEWS!

How many people saw their benefits expire, and were still out of work? ~400000?



www.cbpp.org...

An estimated 390,000 unemployed workers will exhaust their regular benefits in January.


I can't say whether we'll be attacked by nutters today or tommorow or next month, but I know enough not to care. You're more likely to die from an auto accident or a bad fall on an icy walkway - Hell, you're more likely to die from aspirin.



If we want to be responsible individuals and, collectively, a responsible nation, we have to worry about the things that matter.

Are there lunatics who want to harm our nation and her citizens? Of course there are.

Do they hold a candle to diabetes, or heart disease, in terms of preventable mortality? Nope. I would bet green money that the stress resulting from overblown fears of terrorism actually kills exponentially more people than terrorism itself.

So let's get our priorities straight...



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Hey Jimmy, might be time for another brain X-ray
.

I wanted some points, and there are good ones. Now, if you took the time to make some points rather than trying to discredit my repsonses, you are right, this could be a good thread.

My question was how long before the war is on our homefront? Do we beleive that we will have areas like Gaza or DMZ's in Detroit? If we invade Iran, there will be hell to pay stateside.

As far as unemployment, you know damn well it is better than 5 years ago. It is major corporations and INsurance companies that are driving the coverage out of reach. I understand that it is not good, but since we import all our goods, what types of jobs are there? There are no more factories or mills supporting those small towns anymore.

Should we invest in medical cures, yes, but again big business does not want ot cure you, they want to treat you. There is more money.

Also, I am not sitting home waiting for Armegeddon, but when you study the American landscape, it is not as pleasant a picture as it was.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

I wanted some points, and there are good ones. Now, if you took the time to make some points rather than trying to discredit my repsonses, you are right, this could be a good thread.

My question was how long before the war is on our homefront? Do we beleive that we will have areas like Gaza or DMZ's in Detroit? If we invade Iran, there will be hell to pay stateside.


I believe I did make some points and contributed to the thread where exactly did I discredit your responses, I was mearly pointing out that some of your responses will attract the wrong type of attention, you sir discredit yourself.

And I'll repeat again you question was:


Originally posted by esdad71
Are we losing? Are we winning? Can anyone provide me with some good insight as to how the WOT is progressing, and I am not looking for the same rhetoric please, be creative. What is to be done before the war comes home.


and NOT


Originally posted by esdad71
My question was how long before the war is on our homefront? Do we beleive that we will have areas like Gaza or DMZ's in Detroit?


You are acting like a spoilt child who hasn't got his own way.

I'm sure the WoT Forum is the cause of my high blood pressure




[edit on 13/2/07 by Jimmy1880]



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Excellent post. The problem with common sense is that you must first possess it to use it. Objective people understand history takes time.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Jimmy 1880
This is where the OP starts to loose credibility,


I guess it was here that I thought you were discrediting what I had posted.
Also,

"war comes home" and "War on our homefront " are in both questions were I was acting like a spoiled child as you say. Now, I know the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the foothold around the world that the jihad movement has under "al-qeada". I asked, how long will be it till weare attacked on US soil again?

1. Before a pre-emptive strike?
2. After?
3. Suicide bombings in America.

Doesn't take mcuh common sense to put those 2 together now.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join